posted 01-24- 03:40 PM               

I hope others will add to this, or tell me I'm full of it. Perhaps a single list could be maintained?

Cockpits:

Consistant in-cockpit viewpoints. In the Spit you're sitting way back. In the 190 you're pulled right up to the gunsight. The new A8 seems more "correct", which implies the A4 should be fixed. This should be addressed even in the existing standard planes.

More polys in the cockpit framing. The frames in SDoE look quite poor IMHO. consider the P-38 for instance, it should be much more round.

Predictor gunsights. Some versions of the P-51 had these, I believe the 262's did too. This would be a nice addition, although it might need a new input to be listed for dialing in the range.

Ammo counters, so we can get these to work if the plane had them - like the 190's.

A selection of bombsights would be nice. Most forces had gryo'ed sights which are similar to the one in the game, but the Norden was completely different in all ways (the image was steady, you didn't see the ground move under it) and the Sperry was a lot different too.

Damage model:

One of SDoE's points in the reviews was it's damage model, but to date I can't say I agree. I played the scramble where I was in a Spit shooting some taking off 262's, and after dumping a massive number of rounds into one (complete with hit explosions) it appeared to do nothing. Even a couple of hits from a Hispano should down a 262 or most any fighter IMHO.

Then I climbed into a Lanc and started shooting at my engine. After expending hundreds of rounds, many with explosions, it appeared to have suffered no damage. Yes, self-damage was on, although it might have been in a training scenario (does that change _my_ bullets?).

In several flights I rear-ended another plane. My plane was completely destroyed, and the other appearently suffered no damage at all.

Am I doing something odd here? Is this something that needs to be addressed?

Another change I would like to see is the prop strikes be different. They should bend _back_! Also it would be cool if you could take hits in the prop, and then have it shake itself off - most applicable to wood props.

Flight Models:

It seems everyone agrees that something's funky with almost all of them, but it appears we have no central source for what they should be like.

I think the SDoE 190 is far too turny, and the WB one far too unable to turn. Ahhh, but how do we prove that?

Shouldn't flaps have a much more profound effect on the plane's flight? I've flown maybe 10 planes and in all of them putting down/raising the flaps has a powerful effect on the AoA of the plane - the Rallie's are wicked in this regard. In SDoE (and lots of sims actually) they have no obvious effect. Is this wrong, or am I?

AI's:

All planes have a single AI from what I can tell. Watching 262's turnfight is always funny. Is there any possibility of allowing for plug-in AI's?

Wouldn't it be amazing to have a 262 that B&Z's exclusively, or a 109 that does the "up and shoot, flip and dive" attacks on B-17's?

Plug-ins would appear to be a must have if the engine is taking to new areas - for instance what about AI based dive or torpeado bombers?

Maps:

I have to say I find the maps excellent in terms of ground quality. Other people have noted they are too small and that it's being looked at.

However my complaint with them is their "unreality", they are not based on real world anything. V-1 sites in Germany? I would be happy with "real" maps, larger size can wait IMHO.

Flak:

Well I did finally see some flak yesterday, apparently at the coast (I was dead at the time). Still the game is definitely in need of lots of AA of all forms. Airbases in Germany should be bristling with everything down to guys with rifles. And I've always wanted to have a Flaming Onion!

Now this is one area where I could likely help somewhat. Can I add flak somehow?

Weather:

SDoE's clouds are AMAZING (excellent work guys). I've punched clouds in lights and the experience here was wonderful.

I think it would be nice if we had direct control over the weather though. For instance I'd like to be able to add in my own layering (5000' 10% Cu topping at 7500', 11000' 80% Ci topping at 11500') etc.

When flying through the Cu, turbulance should increase considerably. Turbulance in general should be settable too.

I'd love to see rain and snow on the windshield. What about icing?

Ok, enough! I'll add later I'm sure. :-)

posted 01-24- 04:25 PM               

you can also get an updated Spit cockpit.

You can control the distance from the gunsight by using the bracket keys [ and ]

Ammo count is ALT- W. if HUD id turned off then you can't see anything when you hit ALT - W. i like flying with HUD disabled. cause theres no labals and it's more fun.

Lancaster test. Go into your options menu and make sure you have Enable self Damage checked.

make sure you have pervent stalls off too.

F8 switchs posistions if i'm not mistaken, this key will take you to the bomb sight. only problem is the auto pilot turns on when you jump to the bomb sight, and the plane will turn after you jump.

Flaps do have effects but not much. and Flap damage is impossible to do. and flaps blown off the plane have no effect so we left that area and started on something else.

the 109's was not included in the game and you can't setup AI to fly a plane like it should be flown. Thats why Multiplay is better then offline play. It will always be like that.

Flak can be added in the mission editor, good missions have this already included.

I've flown only missions where the flak was so bad i could get out and walk on it. You don't last to long with flak, The AI on the flak is good. flak all the way up only needs about two shots and your dead.

SDOE will never have weather effects other then wind.

Future FS games may have this but it's pretty impossable with the current code base.

posted 01-24- 07:45 PM               

> you can download a new more realistic cockpit for the P38 here

This is _excellent_. Are these collected anywhere?

>You can control the distance from the gunsight by using the bracket keys [ and ]

Well you _can_, but that's kinda like "doc, it hurts when I do this". The issue here is that you should start in all of the planes in the same place.

> Ammo count is ALT- W.

I mean a meter that we can put on the dashboard.

> Go into your options menu and make sure you have Enable self Damage checked.

I did.

> F8 switchs posistions if i'm not mistaken
, this key will take you to the bomb sight.

I'm not sure what you're responding to here. The problem isn't that I don't know how to get to the bombsight, but that the bombsight is poor. I'd like to see a much more realistic selection of bombsights.

> Flaps do have effects but not much.

Why is that? This is one area where I find most flight models to be somewhat suspect.

> the 109's was not included in the game

I know, but now that we have a selection of 109's, it would nice to be able to tune their responses. Is there any way to do this?

> SDOE will never have weather effects other then wind. Future FS games may have this but it's pretty impossable with the current code base.

Hmmm, why is that? Seems like the current code base does it all already, it just needs some UI so we can change it in the editors.

Maury

posted 01-24- 09:13 PM               

Give the guys a break.. jeez, they are trying all they can to make it better, I agree that things can be improved, as I'm sure they do, but it all take time

------------------
If you can't beat em.... out run em!

http://members.xoom.com/naturlich/

posted 01-24- 09:46 PM            

OPP is reviewing damage models at this time to attempt to modify certain characteristics of the model. This will take time and testing. We'd love your help.

OPP is probably the most "centralized" place for evaluating fms and working toward what the game players expect/want/desire. The group has established an extensive database of real world testing results which are used in evaluating new flight models. It is difficult to make these comparisons but unless we have veteran pilots of the relevant plane doing the testing we can only use that information.

In many cases the flight models have been modified to reflect actual weight distributions and C of G. (I am not the expert on this but I know a lot of work has gone into refining them). Sometime it may be worth removing pp5.2 (or 5.3 if you have it - please get it, test it and offer your comments) and comparing the current models with the shipped. The difference in most of the planes is staggering.

Make sure your AI skill (in the options screen) is at the maximum level to see how it flies the different planes. Also check mission settings as skill levels for AI can be cut back in the editor to.

I would love ammo counters - that would be a neat addition, along with flap damage and other features - time will tell on many of them.

------------------
Spin
Fortunae Nihil
RCAF 429

Download the current Multiplayer mission pack

- over 250 online missions -

Spin's campaign to stop the desktop

posted 01-25- 06:58 AM               

Graphically I see no reason why ammo counters would be a problem, so if I get the time I may look into it.

And thanks Nat. Speaking for myself, the occasional thank you is all I ask in return for the hundreds of hours I have put into this sim - well a large check would be nice I was originally motivated by the "I like this sim but it could be so much better" line and I have undertaken these projects to do just that.

------------------
Yardstick painted this

posted 01-25- 07:11 AM               

Thank You!

I'm not trying to be flippant either, I really do mean it. Sometimes we all get so wrapped up in the things pouring out from all the talented guys we forget to stop and just say thanks. Dang it! We usually just want more.

Well, this is me stoping and saying thankyou to you. Your efforts have and will continue to make SDOE into everything we want it to be, or maybe at least close.

PR=FC=

O.k., now back to work!

posted 01-25- 08:41 AM               

Typically this happens because new programmers see a program that they like, and come up with a few new ideas to add to it. This results in an evolutionary branch on the orignal program, but nothing heart stopping. Unknown to them there's some other great ideas in some other program that would mix in just perfectly, but they simply never saw that app.

Well, that's what I'm trying to avoid here" end quote.

Hmmm,you have been around quite some time Maury,some of the games you refer to on your page go back to the early eightys.As a proffesional programmer perhaps you could turn some or all of your astute insights of this sim into reality.

------------------
Cheers
Kat out

posted 01-25- 08:48 AM               

Sure, I'd love to have a go at your flaps model. BTW, is there any way for the current engine to support leading edge deployments like Fowler flaps and such? That would definitely be an improvement over anyone else out there.

Spin:

You're right, the problem was that it was a training mission. After moving to a "real" mission I could indeed to some real damage.

Sadly that wasn't all I expected really. I first shot at the inboard engine without doing too much damage, so then I switched to the outboard. However the "hits" still registered as if I was shooting inboard. The engines showed no sign of damage, and then suddenly exploded taking the wing with them. Hmmm.

Seems that in all/most of the WWII footage I've seen the engines are dead/burning long before the plane suffers gross structural damage. In SDoE the opposite appears to be the case, the plane seems overall OK and then BOOM!

Nat:

Don't take anything I said as whining. I said what I said as constructive critism.

I think if I was going to rank all of it, I'd prioritize thus:

a) better damage modeling
b) get the flaps working
c) better cockpits for all
d) FM tuning (yes, at the end)

All the rest are nice-to-haves.

posted 01-26- 04:45 AM               

You'll want to check the area 51 website and forum for lots of handy howto's:

http://www.fshangar.com/area51/

You'll also want to grab openplane studio it gives you a visual interface for changing planes around. The flaps fix will basically involve making the current flaps seperate wing elements that work on a DOF (degree of freedom) and making their hinges weak enough to break off in high wind. It's all easier to understand if you poke around in OPStudio a bit. Bjorn's cookbook has some docs on how he made the Spit IX gear break off at high speed which is similar.

TS

posted 01-26- 07:45 AM               

Good advice and all, but I am a rofessional programmer. Ask Mike how much time he has left over on his hands, then consider that I'm working on WebObjects!

But to more closely address your point, that IS what I'm doing here and on my web page. My web page is all about collecting great ideas from all over the place, then presenting them in a single list. This makes the job for new authors easier. That's the whole idea with this thread too. For some reason some people have interpreted it as something else, why I don't know.

But sure, if Mike will let me at the source, I'd be happy to try my hand at adding layered clouds and such.

Now here's an interesting concept. At some point SDoE will no longer be a "current" product in the stores. That time was likely 6 months ago. That means there's essentially no money in the code stream any more. So what about OS'ing it under as BSD-like license? No one's tried that before.

Yard:

Oh well on the ammo counters.

Tail:

Well you answered another question I had - it seemed that the gears would lower fine at any speed, but I wasn't sure. So essentially this issue comes down to a modelling one? IE, you can do it if you want.

As to the flaps effect on _flight_, would the separation into a different DoF item have an effect here as well? Or is that something in the physics engine itself?

posted 01-26- 08:37 AM               

MH, how hard is it to add additional querries? If it is not too bad, could we come up with a wish list? I think all of us have some ideas here that we could implement if we had various querries available

I would like:
qryAmmo: ammo count
qryMGtrigger: is MG gun trigger pressed?
qryCtrigger: is cannon trigger pressed?

------------------
-Sv =FC=

WWI in SDOE!

posted 01-26- 08:57 AM               

Oh man that would rule. Of course it's great for combat but I KNOW some of you love airshow routines. Even if the AI could just follow you closely and maintain position. Flanker 2.0 "kind of" does this, but not as tight as I'd like.

posted 01-26- 12:37 PM               

Well that's excellent news on the slats. How do they work? Are they "fixed", or tied to the flaps? Do they have a real effect on the flight dynamics?

Side note: they faked slats in WB by making the flaps "work better". Hmmm, not quite the same thing IMHO!

As to the plug-in API, hmmm. Ok, let's think about this one a while... how about a event-based language like yacc or such, where you define variables and what to do if they are true in a ranked fashion? For instance you could define something like "pullOutAlt" which would consider the minimum alt at which you could pull out before hitting the ground given current conditions (angle, speed, control response etc.). Then you'd have a "pullOut" function that would be the "pilot's response" to that. You'd write the various functions (with lots of randomizers of course!), compile that into a dll, and that would be included somehow during game loadup.

Imagine having different versions for various qualities of pilots. Meet a newbie squad and they follow you into the ground, meet the Abbeville Boys and forget it!

The problem with this approach is that some of these are plane dependant (like pullout alt) and others are pilot dependant... For instance you might want a good pilot to forget about turning with your Spit. Hmmm, I'll put some more thought into this one.

Sv:

Is there a qryStall? That would be super-handy for adding stall horns or lights. If there isn't one, let's add that one to your list!

posted 01-26- 02:32 PM               

My day job is also programming and I have a background in AI, I would really love to dig into the brains of the pilots so to speak = ) There's been some talk of access to the source under NDA but I don't know if it will come to anything.

posted 01-26- 02:40 PM               

I don't get the airfoil file - I assume that the airFoilDown/airFoilUp refers to the ailerons up/down - not the flaps, right? If the flaps worked the same way then the coef of moment would work to create the nose-down on flaps deployment, right?

posted 01-26- 08:07 PM               

If the flaps are modelled as seperate airfoils on a DOF then alot of stuff just becomes simple. since the force gets applied at the back of the wing the nose _should_ rotate forward at least thats my theory.

TS

posted 01-27- 06:16 AM               

Adding queries from this side isn't hard at all. It's just a matter of fully defining what the data means, who asks for it and who they ask. After that, it's dirt simple.

Tail